• Washburn [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called “rules based international order” serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they’re not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.

    Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?

    • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable?

      Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can’t seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Large countries invading and annexing stuff is not a solution to any of those problems. It is a regression to an even worse system.